IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Ammar Al-Ali
`U.S. Patent No.: 10,687,745
`Issue Date:
`June 23, 2020
`App. Serial No.: 16/835,772
`Filing Date:
`March 31, 2020
`Title:
`PHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING DEVICES, SYSTEMS,
`AND METHODS
`
`Attorney Docket Nos.: 50095-0045IP1
`50095-0045IP3
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. BRIAN W. ANTHONY
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1042
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01291
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4
`I.
`II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10
`III. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 11
`A. Iwamiya-Sarantos renders obvious claims 1, 2-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14; and
`Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman renders obvious claims 4, 15, and 17-27 .... 12
`1. Iwamiya-Sarantos renders obvious a “surface comprising a dark-
`colored coating” (elements [1.4] and [20.4]) .............................................. 12
`2. My first declarations demonstrated that claim 20 and 27, and all their
`elements, are rendered obvious by Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman ........ 20
`3. Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman renders obvious that “the plurality of
`photodiodes are arranged in an array having a spatial configuration
`corresponding to a shape of the portion of the tissue [measurement site
`encircled/bounded] by the light block” (element [15.4] and claims 6 and
`26) ............................................................................................................... 21
`4. Iwamiya-Sarantos (with or without Venkatraman) renders obvious
`measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist (claims 9 and 18) and adding a
`second wavelength (claims 2 and 27) ......................................................... 26
`5. Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman renders obvious “the second shape
`comprises a width and a length, and wherein the width is different from the
`length” (Claim 25) ...................................................................................... 72
`B. Sarantos-Shie renders obvious claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-19;
`Sarantos-Shie-Venkatraman renders obvious claims 3, 4, 15, and 17-27; and
`Sarantos-Shie-Savant renders obvious claim 12 ............................................. 73
`1. Sarantos-Shie renders obvious a “first shape” and a different “second
`shape” (elements [1.1]-[1.2] and [20.1]-[20.2]) ......................................... 73
`2. Sarantos-Shie (with or without Venkatraman) renders obvious a “light
`block having a circular shape” (element [15.3]) ........................................ 83
`3. Sarantos-Shie (with or without Venkatraman) renders obvious that “the
`plurality of photodiodes are arranged in an array having a spatial
`configuration corresponding to a shape of the portion of the tissue
`measurement site encircled by the light block” (element [15.4], claims 6
`and 26) ........................................................................................................ 89
`4. Sarantos-Shie (with or without Venkatraman) renders obvious
`measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist (claims 9 and 18) ...................... 91
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`5. Sarantos-Shie-Savant renders obvious the second shape comprising a
`circular geometry (claim 12) ...................................................................... 91
`6. Sarantos-Shie-Venkatraman renders obvious “the second shape
`comprises a width and a length, and wherein the width is different from the
`length” (Claim 25) ...................................................................................... 94
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 96
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`I, Brian W. Anthony, of Cambridge, MA, declare that:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Fish & Richardson, P.C., on behalf of Apple
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”), as an independent expert consultant in inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) proceedings IPR2022-01291 and IPR2022-01465 before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). I understand that this declaration will be
`
`submitted in support of Petitioner’s Replies to Patent Owner’s Response to the
`
`Petition for inter partes review of the ’745 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745) in
`
`each of the proceedings. I will refer to the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2022-
`
`01291 as “1291-POR” and the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2022-01465 as
`
`“1465-POR.”
`
`2.
`
`This declaration supplements, and is intended to be read in
`
`conjunction with, my declarations in support of Apple’s Petitions in IPR2022-
`
`01291 and IPR2022-01465. I will refer to my first declaration in IPR2022-01291
`
`as “1291-Declaration” or “1291-APPLE-1003,” and my first declaration in
`
`IPR2022-01465 as “1465-Declaration” or “1465-APPLE-1003.” In my first
`
`declarations, I address many topics, including (but not limited to) my background
`
`and qualifications, the level of skill in art, an overview of the ’745 Patent, claim
`
`construction, certain legal standards explained to me by Apple’s counsel, and a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`detailed analysis of the prior art against the ’745 Patent’s claims. The opinions and
`
`explanations expressed in my first declarations apply equally here.
`
`3.
`
`In writing this Supplemental Declaration, I have considered the
`
`following: my own knowledge and experience, including my teaching and work
`
`experience in the above fields; and my experience of working with others involved
`
`in those fields. I have also reviewed the following materials, in addition to other
`
`materials I cite in this declaration:
`
`• APPLE-1004: U.S. Pat. No. 8,670,819 (“Iwamiya”)
`
`• APPLE-1005: U.S. Pat. No. 9,392,946 (“Sarantos”)
`
`• APPLE-1006: U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0275854 (“Venkataraman”)
`
`• APPLE-1007: U.S. Pat. No. 6,483,976 (“Shie”)
`
`• APPLE-1008: U.S. Pat. No. 6,801,799 (“Mendelson-799”)
`
`• APPLE-1009: U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0018647 (“Mandel”)
`
`• APPLE-1010: U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0275810 (“Ayers”)
`
`• APPLE-1011: PCT. Pub. No. 2011/051888 (“Ackermans”)
`
`• APPLE-1012: U.S. Pat. No. 6,158,245 (“Savant”)
`
`• APPLE-1013: Design of Pulse Oximeters, J.G. Webster;
`
`• Institution of Physics Publishing, 1997 (“Webster”)
`
`• APPLE-1014: U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0054112 (“Cybart”)
`
`• APPLE-1015: U.S. Pat. No. 5,893,364 (“Haar”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`• APPLE-1016: U.S. Pat. No. 5,952,084 (“Anderson”)
`
`• APPLE-1036: CONFIDENTIAL - ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
`
`Hearing Transcript of Dr. Ueyn Block
`
`• APPLE-1037: CONFIDENTIAL - ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
`
`Hearing Transcript of Dr. Saahil Mehra
`
`• APPLE-1038: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 Exhibit RX-0335 (U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 5,830,137 (“Scharf”))
`
`• APPLE-1039: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 Exhibit RX-0504 (Austin
`
`Wareing, Optimization of Reflectance-Mode Pulse Oximeter Sensors)
`
`• APPLE-1040: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 Exhibit RX-0508 (Jianchu
`
`Yao and Steve Warren, Stimulating Student Learning with a Novel
`
`“In-House” Pulse Oximeter Design (2005))
`
`• APPLE-1041: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 Exhibit RX-0632
`
`• APPLE-1043: Excerpt of The American Heritage Dictionary of the
`
`English Language, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
`
`Publishing Company (2011)
`
`• APPLE-1044: Excerpt of Collins Dictionary, HarperCollins
`
`Publishers (2010)
`
`• APPLE-1045: Excerpt of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`
`Eleventh Edition, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated (2014)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`• APPLE-1046: Excerpts from Bronzino, The Biomedical Engineering
`
`Handbook, CRC Press, Inc. (1995) (“Bronzino”)
`
`• APPLE-1047: U.S. Patent No. 6,014,576 to Raley
`
`• APPLE-1048: Severinghaus et al., Recent Developments in Pulse
`
`Oximetry, Anesthesiology, Vol. 76, No. 6 (June 1992)
`
`• APPLE-1049: Duffy, MIO Alpha BLE Review, PC Magazine (Jan.
`
`28, 2013) available at https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/mio-alpha-ble
`
`• APPLE-1050: Pang et al., A Neo-Reflective Wrist Pulse Oximeter,
`
`IEEE Access, Volume 2 (January 12, 2015)
`
`• APPLE-1051: Li et al., A Wireless Reflectance Pulse Oximeter With
`
`Digital Baseline Control for Unfiltered Photoplethysmograms, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3 (June
`
`2012)
`
`• APPLE-1052: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0253010
`
`to Brady et al.
`
`• APPLE-1053: Cai et al., Implementation of a Wireless Pulse
`
`Oximeter Based on Wrist Band Sensor, 2010 3rd International
`
`Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI 2010)
`
`• APPLE-1054: International Publication No. WO 2001/17421 to
`
`Lindberg et al.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`• APPLE-1055: Maattala et al., Optimum Place for Measuring Pulse
`
`Oximeter Signal in Wireless Sensor-Belt or Wrist-Band, 2007
`
`International Conference on Convergence Information Technology,
`
`IEEE (2007)
`
`• APPLE-1056: Fontaine et al., Reflectance-Based Pulse Oximeter for
`
`the Chest and Wrist, Worchester Polytechnic Institute (April 2013)
`
`available at https://digital.wpi.edu/show/6969z2326
`
`• APPLE-1057: Stein, “Withings Pulse O2 review: Fitness band plus
`
`heart rate monitor checks blood oxygen, too,” CNET.com (April 25,
`
`2014), available at https://www.cnet.com/reviews/withings-pulse-o2-
`
`review/
`
`• APPLE-1058: U.S. Patent No. 7,468,036 to Rulkov et al.
`
`• APPLE-1059: CONFIDENTIAL - Transcript of the Deposition of Dr.
`
`R. James Duckworth (August 9, 2023)
`
`• APPLE-1060: Mendelson et al., A Wearable Reflectance Pulse
`
`Oximeter for Remote Physiological Monitoring, Proceedings of the
`
`28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference (Sept. 3, 2006)
`
`• APPLE-1061: International Publication No. WO 2011/051888 to
`
`Ackermans et al.
`
`• APPLE-1062: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0116820
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`to Goldreich
`
`• APPLE-1063: International Publication No. WO 2012/140559 to
`
`Shmueli et al.
`
`• APPLE-1064: U.S. Patent No. 7,650,176 to Sarussi et al.
`
`• APPLE-1065: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0095092
`
`to Kondo et al.
`
`• APPLE-1066: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0355604
`
`to Fraser et al.
`
`• APPLE-1067: U.S. Patent No. 6,580,086 to Schulz et al.
`
`• APPLE-1068: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0267854
`
`to Johnson et al.
`
`• APPLE-1069: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 Exhibit RX-0498 (Takatani
`
`et al., Optical Oximetry Sensors for Whole Blood and Tissue, IEEE
`
`Engineering in Medicine and Biology (June/July 1994))
`
`• APPLE-1070: U.S. Patent No. 5,164,858 to Aguilera, Jr. et al.
`
`• APPLE-1071: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0267346
`
`to Faber et al.
`
`• APPLE-1072: U.S. Patent No. 9,316,495 to Suzuki et al.
`
`• APPLE-1073: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0051955
`
`to Tiao et al.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`• APPLE-1074: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0058312
`
`to Han et al.
`
`• APPLE-1075: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0261986
`
`to Chin et al.
`
`• APPLE-1076: Beam Shaping with Cylindrical Lenses, available at
`
`https://www.newport.com/n/beam-shaping-with-cylindrical-lenses
`
`• APPLE-1077: Dickey, Laser Beam Shaping Theory and Techniques,
`
`Second Edition, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC (2014)
`
`• APPLE-1078: Lee et al., Micro-LED Technologies and Applications,
`
`Information Display (June 2016)
`
`• APPLE-1079: U.S. Patent No. 6,398,727 to Bui et al.
`
`• APPLE-1080: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0323829
`
`to LeBoeuf et al.
`
`4.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis,
`
`for all tasks involved. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these
`
`proceedings or on the content of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`5.
`Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’745 patent and its file history, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`relevant art as of the Critical Date (a “POSITA”) would have been a person with a
`
`working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. The person would
`
`have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the
`
`design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with
`
`training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and
`
`processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological
`
`monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the person could have also had a Master of
`
`Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related
`
`work experience in the same discipline. I understand that Patent Owner previously
`
`adopted this same definition in the ITC (APPLE-1033, 179), which suggests that
`
`Patent Owner would agree that the level of skill in this definition is sufficient to
`
`enable a POSITA to make and use the technology claimed in the ’745 Patent
`
`without undue experimentation.
`
`III. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
`6.
`The analysis and opinions expressed in my first declarations fully
`
`explain why each and every feature of the ’745 Patent’s Challenged Claims is
`
`provided in the prior art. As I previously explained with reference to the applied
`
`prior art and corroborating references, the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA. I understand that Patent Owner and Dr. Duckworth have
`
`considered my opinions and offered their own, some of which are inconsistent with
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`my view. Below, I provide further testimony in response to Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments. In responding to Patent Owner’s arguments, I have analyzed various
`
`publications and materials including materials cited in my first declarations and
`
`additional materials in this declaration. The fact that I have not addressed all of
`
`Patent Owner arguments and Dr. Duckworth’s opinions should not be interpreted
`
`as agreement with them.
`
`A.
`
`7.
`
`Iwamiya-Sarantos renders obvious claims 1, 2-3, 5-6, 8-12, and
`14; and Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman renders obvious claims
`4, 15, and 17-27
`1.
`Iwamiya-Sarantos renders obvious a “surface comprising a
`dark-colored coating” (elements [1.4] and [20.4])
`Patent Owner contends that the Iwamiya-Sarantos combination “rests
`
`on the unsupported assumption that Iwamiya’s light shielding frame 18 would not,
`
`in fact, provide the light shielding function disclosed in Iwamiya.” 1291-POR, 44;
`
`1465-POR, 16. However, I have never disputed that Iwamiya’s original light
`
`shielding frame 18 was intended to block unwanted light from reaching the
`
`photodiodes. APPLE-1004, 8:38-42. Instead, Iwamiya lacks detail on suitable
`
`materials that could be used to achieve the desired “light shielding” function of
`
`frame 18. Dr. Duckworth agreed. APPLE-1059, 88:12-94:8. Based on my
`
`review, a POSITA would have recognized that an opaque, light-absorbing material
`
`in the form of a dark-colored coating like that taught in Sarantos to be an obvious
`
`and well-known option for implementing the light shielding function of Iwamiya’s
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`frame 18. Indeed, the use of such a dark-colored coating was common practice
`
`well before the ’745 Patent. APPLE-1005, 17:1-25; see also APPLE-1013, 96-971
`
`(“coat the housing around the photodiode with a material that does not scatter or
`
`reflect light”), 111 (“cover the sensor site with opaque material”); APPLE-1067,
`
`9:58-10:23.
`
`8.
`
`A POSITA also would have found the selection of a light-absorbing
`
`material for frame 18 to be a simple matter of design choice given that light-
`
`shielding materials must either absorb or reflect light, and the use of a “dark”
`
`coating would be particularly obvious to absorb the broadest spectrum of light.
`
`APPLE-1059, 94:14-95:10. A POSITA would have known how to apply the dark-
`
`colored coating in any suitable manner that would ensure light is effectively
`
`blocked from reaching the photodiodes except through the filter 17, e.g., by
`
`coating the exterior of the frame 18 with a dark, light-absorbing material. APPLE-
`
`1005, 17:1-25.
`
`
`1 Numbers refer to page numbers of the PDF document.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`dark-colored coating on exterior surface of light shielding frame 18
`
`APPLE-1004, FIG. 42
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that a POSITA would be
`
`led by Iwamiya to select a reflective rather than absorptive material for use on the
`
`light-shielding frame 18. 1291-POR, 46-50; 1465-POR, 18-22. Based on my
`
`review, a Sarantos-like dark-colored coating would have been more effective than
`
`a reflective material at reducing light scatter in the empty space surrounding the
`
`frame 18, and this in turn would have been beneficial to reduce the amount of light
`
`that could reflect back from the empty space through the optical filer 17 and the
`
`
`2 Annotations and color added to figures unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`photodiodes. A POSITA would have sought to reduce these effects since any light
`
`that reflected back from the space surrounding frame 18 and through the optical
`
`filter 17 to the photodiodes would have different path lengths that could increase
`
`optical interference and reduce measurement accuracy. APPLE-1013, 69, 96-97;
`
`APPLE-1067, 1:65-2:16, 9:58-10:23.
`
`10.
`
`I also disagree with Patent Owner’s assumption that Iwamiya
`
`specifically instructs a POSITA to use reflective rather than absorptive materials
`
`for light shielding. Patent Owner cites portions of Iwamiya that describe the use of
`
`reflective materials for components that are different and functionally distinct from
`
`the light-shielding frame 18. 1291-POR, 46-47 (citing APPLE-1004, 6:62-7:3,
`
`7:41-49, 18:61-65, 28:64-29:1, 39:20-24); 1465-POR, 18-19. For example, Patent
`
`Owner refers to Iwamiya’s description of a “reflection” layer 13 on an external
`
`surface of the light guiding ring 11 and a “reflection” layer 15 on the external
`
`surface of diffusion ring 12. APPLE-1004, 6:62-7:3, 7:41-49. But a POSITA
`
`would have understood that reflection layers 13 and 15 serve the specific purposes
`
`of preventing observation light emitted by the LEDs from leaking outside the rings
`
`11, 12 and guiding observation light through the rings 11, 12 to uniformly
`
`illuminate the skin over a wide area of a ring shape. For example, Iwamiya
`
`explains that “[t]he first reflection layer 13 prevents the observation light, which
`
`is incident in the inner portion of the light guiding ring portion 11, from leaking to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`the outside of the light guiding ring portion 11” and “[t]he second reflection layer
`
`15 prevents the observation light, which is incident in the inner portion of the
`
`diffusion/irradiation ring portion 12, from leaking to the outside of the
`
`diffusion/irradiation ring portion 12.” APPLE-1004, 6:67-7:3, 7:45-49; see also
`
`id., 6:10-14, 7:14-24, 10:44-49, 11:55-12:36. The function of reflection layers 13,
`
`15 is thus much different from light shielding frame 18, which is specifically
`
`designed to shield light from reaching the photodiodes 9. APPLE-1004, 8:38-42.
`
`Indeed, Iwamiya specifically refers to these components by different terminology
`
`that underscore differences in their respective functions.
`
`11.
`
`I also disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that light-shielding
`
`frame 18 must be reflective since holder portion 43 is reflective. These
`
`components are not even used in the same embodiments. Iwamiya describes the
`
`“holder portion 43” with respect to “second,” “third,” and “fourth” embodiments.
`
`APPLE-1004, 18:61-65, 28:64-29:1, 39:20-24. These embodiments are
`
`substantially different from the “first embodiment” that uses light shielding frame
`
`18, as shown below in the FIG. 3 first embodiment and the FIG. 13 second
`
`embodiment. Dr. Duckworth acknowledged that they are different embodiments.
`
`APPLE-1059, 88:1-94:8.
`
`12. By way of example, the first embodiment with light shielding frame
`
`18 includes a cavity or channel through which light reflected from the tissue may
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`travel around a periphery of the frame 18 if it is not initially directed through
`
`optical filter 17. As noted above, this cavity introduces greater risk of multiple
`
`scattering and pathlength variations not present in the embodiments that employ
`
`holder portion 43 (where no comparable cavity exists). Neither Patent Owner nor
`
`Dr. Duckworth acknowledge these differences.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`light shielding frame 18
`
`cavity/channel/empty space
`
`holder portion 43
`
`APPLE-1004, FIGS. 3, 13
`
`
`
`13. The geometrical aspects of components across various embodiments
`
`and diverse design considerations would have prompted a POSITA to make
`
`distinct choices for each component. Consider, for instance, the coatings on
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`different sides of a structure. On one side, a coating can be light-blocking and
`
`reflective, while on the other side, a different coating could be light-blocking and
`
`absorptive. These design choices stem from the desired light trajectories and the
`
`intricate specifics of the system’s overall configuration and geometry. In the case
`
`of the large obtuse angle geometry of the light shielding frame 18 of FIG. 3, using
`
`a reflective surface could potentially introduce multi-path artifacts more readily, in
`
`contrast to the arrangement in FIG. 13. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 13,
`
`employing a reflective light-blocking surface on holder portion 43 might enhance
`
`the signal as the specific geometry likely has a reduced risk of multi-pass or multi-
`
`path artifacts.
`
`14.
`
`In contrast to Iwamiya’s specific description of reflective materials for
`
`layers 13 and 15 and holder portion 43, Iwamiya leaves the choice of a suitable
`
`material for light shielding frame 18 to a POSITA. Compare APPLE-1004, 6:62-
`
`7:3, 7:41-49, 18:61-65, 28:64-29:1, 39:20-24 with APPLE-1004, 8:38-42. A
`
`POSITA would have found a dark-colored coating as taught in Sarantos to be an
`
`obvious and beneficial option for achieving the light-shielding function desired by
`
`Iwamiya, for the reasons previously discussed in my first declarations (1291-
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶42; 1465-APPLE-1003, ¶43) and this Supplemental Declaration.
`
`Even if some other benefits might flow from use of a reflective material over a
`
`dark-colored coating in some cases as alleged by Patent Owner, the mere existence
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`of design tradeoffs would not have detracted from the obviousness of using a dark-
`
`colored coating to shield external light from reaching the photodetectors.
`
`2. My first declarations demonstrated that claim 20 and 27,
`and all their elements, are rendered obvious by Iwamiya-
`Sarantos-Venkatraman
`I do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the “Petition and
`
`15.
`
`Anthony’s declaration do not address multiple elements of claim 20.” Based on
`
`my review, elements [20.0]-[20.8] in claim 20 are substantively identical to
`
`elements [1.0]-[1.7] in claim 1. I acknowledge that, in addressing elements [20.0]-
`
`[20.8] in my 1291-Declaration, I inadvertently cross-cited elements from claim 15
`
`rather than claim 1. 1291-APPLE-1003, ¶66. But I do not believe that this
`
`typographical error was in any way confusing; the context of the patent and the
`
`declaration should have made clear that I intended to cite [1.0]-[1.7] in addressing
`
`[20.0]-[20.8] in my 1291-Declaration. To dispel any doubt, I re-affirm that my
`
`analyses of [1.0]-[1.7] apply equally to [20.0]-[20.8] in all implicated grounds.
`
`Based on my review, the record contains no evidence of prejudice to Patent Owner,
`
`nor any indication that Patent Owner could not or did not fairly understand my
`
`intent to reference claim 1 rather than claim 15—just as I properly referenced
`
`claim 1 in addressing the same elements from claim 20 in Ground 2B in my 1291-
`
`Declaration and in addressing the same elements from claim 20 in my 1465-
`
`Declaration. 1291-APPLE-1003, ¶102; 1465-APPLE-1003, ¶¶95, 186. Even
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner addresses corresponding elements of claims 1 and 20 together. See
`
`1291-POR, 44 (heading for Section IV.D), 54 (heading for Section V.A).
`
`3.
`
`Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman renders obvious that “the
`plurality of photodiodes are arranged in an array having a
`spatial configuration corresponding to a shape of the
`portion of the tissue [measurement site encircled/bounded]
`by the light block” (element [15.4] and claims 6 and 26)
`16. My first declarations demonstrated how element [15.4] would have
`
`been obvious based on the teachings of Iwamiya-Sarantos-Venkatraman, including
`
`Iwamiya’s disclosure that its monitoring device includes “plural light receiving
`
`units 9… two-dimensionally disposed … on the same circumference centered on
`
`an optical axis of the scattered light taking unit 8.” APPLE-1004, 14:36-41
`
`(emphasis added); 1291-APPLE-1003, ¶¶55-56; 1465-APPLE-1003, ¶¶80-81.
`
`Iwamiya’s light block is circular, and the fact that Iwamiya’s plural photodiodes 9
`
`are arranged in “a spatial configuration corresponding to a shape of the portion of
`
`the tissue [measurement site encircled/bounded] by the light block” is evident from
`
`the fact that the photodiodes 9 are arranged “on the same circumference centered
`
`on an optical axis” of the circular light taking unit 8. APPLE-1004, 14:36-41.
`
`From this disclosure, a POSITA would have understood and it would have been
`
`obvious that the photodiodes 9 are thus arranged in an array having a spatial
`
`configuration corresponding to the circular shape of the tissue measurement site
`
`encircled by the circular light block, as illustrated below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`photodiodes 9 arranged “on the same circumference centered on an optical
`axis” of the circular light taking unit 8
`
`light block
`
`
`
`APPLE-1004, FIG. 2 (annotated according to Iwamiya’s teachings)
`
`17.
`
`I disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “a small plurality of
`
`photodiodes do not suffice to define Claim 15’s circular shape.” 1291-POR, 52;
`
`1465-POR, 25. Iwamiya does not limit the number of photodiodes in its
`
`“plural[ity]”; a POSITA would have understood and it would have been obvious to
`
`select any suitable number of photodiodes, including six or more, that could be
`
`“two-dimensionally disposed… on the same circumference centered on an optical
`
`axis of the scattered light taking unit 8.” APPLE-1004, 14:36-41. Iwamiya leaves
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`the choice of the number of photodiodes to a POSITA, who would have known
`
`that more than just a “small plurality” of photodiodes (e.g., more than 2-3) were
`
`commonly employed in pulse oximeters before the ’745 Patent for purposes such
`
`as increasing detection area, light sensitivity, and overall signal-to-noise ratio, and
`
`with consideration to cost and manufacturability. For example, Webster states
`
`that:
`
`In a reflectance oximeter, the incident light emitted from the LEDs
`diffuses through the skin and the back scattered light forms a circular
`pattern around the LEDs. Thus if we use multiple photodiodes
`placed symmetrically with respect to the emitter instead of a single
`photodiode, a large fraction of back scattered light can be detected
`and therefore larger plethysmograms can be obtained.
`
`APPLE-1013, 107; see also APPLE-1008, 4:6-9 (“the total amount of
`
`backscattered light that can be detected by a reflectance sensor is directly
`
`proportional to the number of photodetectors”), 4:59-62 (“a radially-symmetric
`
`photodetector array can help to maximize the detection of backscattered light from
`
`the skin and minimize differences from local tissue inhomogeneity”); APPLE-
`
`1060, 4 (“a concentric array of either discrete PDs, or an annularly-shaped PD ring,
`
`could be used to increase the amount of backscattered light detected by a
`
`reflectance type pulse oximeter sensor”); APPLE-1068, [0022] (“the circular array
`
`of detectors 106 may prove advantageous in enlarging the detection area of the
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`device 100 and therefore increasing the probability of detecting a reflected
`
`signal.”), FIG. 1A.
`
`18.
`
`I find Patent Owner’s argument problematic insofar as it seeks to hold
`
`Iwamiya to a higher standard of disclosure than the specification of the ’745 Patent
`
`itself. The ’745 specification merely refers to a “plurality” of photodetectors
`
`310/710, but never expressly discloses that any minimum number of
`
`photodetectors is required to form an array. Cf. APPLE-1001, 9:27-30, 11:38-43;
`
`APPLE-1059, 97:22-102:17. Iwamiya substantially mirrors the ’745 specification
`
`in disclosing “plural photodiodes 9” two-dimensionally arranged around a
`
`“circumference” of an optical axis. APPLE-1004, 14:36-41. To the extent a
`
`POSITA would have understood the disclosure of the ’745 Patent as teaching more
`
`than a small number of photodetectors (e.g., at least six), a POSITA would have
`
`understood Iwamiya’s disclosure as encompassing the same. The ’745 Patent
`
`describes no critical number or range of numbers of photodiodes required to
`
`achieve any particular performance standard or to achieve unexpected results. A
`
`POSITA would have found Iwamiya’s disclosure of a plurality of photodiodes
`
`sufficient to render obvious more than two or three (e.g., six or more) photodiodes
`
`in this context.
`
`19.
`
`In any event, I disagree with Patent Owner’s assumption that [15.4]
`
`requires more than a small number of photodiodes. The term “correspond” has
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`broader meanings than those represented by the applicant to the Office during
`
`prosecution of the parent application, and merely requires, for example, that the
`
`spatial configuration of the photodiodes “be in agreement, harmony, or
`
`conformity” with to the circular shaped light block. APPLE-1043, 3; APPLE-
`
`1044, 3; APPLE-1045, 3. Iwamiya’s photodiodes arranged “on the same
`
`circumference centered on an optical axis” of the circular light taking unit 8 is
`
`consistent with the plain meaning of “correspond,” for example, because the
`
`photodiodes are in agreement, harmony, or conformity with the circular shape of
`
`the light taking unit 8 bounded by the circular light block by being on the same
`
`circumference of a circle.
`
`20. Patent Owner further argues that a POSITA would not have been
`
`motivated to change Iwamiya as proposed because the detecting-area’s center
`
`would have no photodetector coverage, resulting in a degraded optical signal that
`
`receives less light due to gaps in coverage. 1465-POR, 27-28. However, I
`
`understand that there is no need to show any motivation, as I had not proposed to
`
`modify Iwamiya in this regard. 1291-APPLE-1003, ¶¶55-56; 1465-APPLE-1003,
`
`¶¶80-81. As discussed, Iwamiya explicitly discloses a plurality of photodiodes
`
`arranged in an array having a spatial configuration corresponding to a circular
`
`shape. Id.
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`21. Dr. Duckworth provides no support for Patent Owner’s argument in
`
`his declaration (1465-EX2002, ¶86; EX2070, ¶104), and evidence shows the
`
`contrary. A POSITA understood that in “a reflectance oximeter, the incident light
`
`emitted from the LEDs diffuses through the skin and the back scattered light forms
`
`a circular pattern” and thus, using “multiple photodiodes placed symmetrically
`
`with respect to the [emitted light] instead of a single photodiode, a large fraction of
`
`back scattered light can be detected and therefore larger plethysmograms can be
`
`obtained.” APPLE-1013, 107; APPLE-1008, 4:6-9 (“the total amount of
`
`backscattered light that can be detected by a reflectance sensor is directly
`
`proportional to the number of photodetectors”), 4:59-62 (“a radially-symmetric
`
`photodetector array can help to maximize the detection of backscattered light from
`
`the skin and minimize differences from local tissue inhomogeneity”); APPLE-
`
`1060, 4 (“a concentric array of either discrete PDs, or an annularly-shaped PD ring,
`
`could be used to increase the amount of backscattered light detected by a
`
`reflectance type pulse oximeter sensor”).
`
`4.
`
`Iwamiya-Sarantos (with or without Venkatraman) renders
`obvious measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist (claims 9
`and 18) and adding a second wavelength (claims 2 and 27)
`(a)
`Sarantos discloses and renders obvious measuring
`oxygen saturation at the wrist
`22. Patent Owner focused on whether Sarantos’s own device measures
`
`oxygen saturation or just pulse rate. 1291-POR, 20-21; 1465-POR, 33-35. But I
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`relied on Sarantos in claims 2, 9, 18, and 27 not for the structures of Sarantos’s
`
`own device, but rather for its reference to well-known techniques for measuring
`
`oxy